Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Rough consensus is that the topic is notable (despite the awkward title), and that while the article may have POV issues (at least in the view of many), these are not so severe as to be irremediable through editing. Sandstein 06:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article appears to be an attempt (possibly unintended) to glorify the organization (Ukrainian Insurgent Army or UPA) partly accountable for the Holocaust and fully responsible for the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. One of the leaders (same for the others Roman Shukhevych or Dmytro Klyachkivsky) Stepan Bandera was a Nazi collaborator. This is extremely disturbing. Please refer to this discussions for more --> [1], [2] GizzyCatBella🍁 03:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Organizations, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. GizzyCatBella🍁 03:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep well written and sourced. Deletion is not the way to deal with neutral point of view concerns....that I am not seeing in this case.Robert Gellately, ed. (16 February 2018). The Oxford Illustrated History of the Third Reich. Oxford University Press. pp. 230–. ISBN 978-0-19-104401-4. OCLC 1023801367.Moxy- 03:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Some could be merged to Ukrainian Insurgent Army article. Also please note -->[3] - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there any sources that contradict the article? Moxy- 03:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wait a minute Moxy .. are you saying that WP:NPOV issues are not present in the article? - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Few things could be reword it...but it follows the sources there. Again are there other sources that contradictory sources there? Moxy- 03:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay 🙂 .. so point to me please which source was used for this for example --> All conscious Ukrainian patriots were physically killed by Polish militants, killing their wives and children, and the rest of the Ukrainian population was required to declare loyalty and support for the Polish insurgent movement. ... or ... does this source [4] (kokolus.com) is a source that is a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) and meets the Arbitration Committee ruling [5] ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Moxy by the way .. my leaf is nicer. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: the author gives the source for that. I'll translate the source into English for you--> "Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army: Historical Essays / National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; Institute of History of Ukraine / SV Kulchytsky (ed.)." - К .: Наук. Historical essays, 2005. - p. 274. BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: if you want sources in addition to the one the author already gives, here are two more: "Theory and Practice. Historical representation of the wartime accounts of the activities of OUN-UPA (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists-Ukrainian Insurgent Army). East European Jewish Affairs. Vol. 36. No.2. December 2006. pp. 163–179." and this "The Difficulties of Polish-Ukrainian Historical Reconciliation," Royal Institute of International Affairs, Kataryna Wolczuk, London, 2002 BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Please quote from the source you presented above part that support this: - All conscious Ukrainian patriots were physically killed by Polish militants, killing their wives and children, and the rest of the Ukrainian population was required to declare loyalty and support for the Polish insurgent movement. GizzyCatBella🍁 04:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: the author of the article gave you the source, so I translated it for you. Then I gave you an additional source. You can read them at your convenience. Let's get back to your original allegation. Your originally asked for the entire article to be deleted because you allege the article "glorifies" the UPA; yet when I ask you to please site specific passages you think does glorifies UPA, you can't do it. Or at least you haven't yet. I feel that if you're going to request an entire article be deleted; then at the very least you should be able to site passages to support allegations. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

So you can’t provide the quote, you want me to look for it but you insist that :

All conscious Ukrainian patriots were physically killed by Polish militants, killing their wives and children, and the rest of the Ukrainian population was required to declare loyalty and support for the Polish insurgent movement.

is supported by Historical Essays / National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; Institute of History of Ukraine / SV Kulchytsky (ed.)." - К .: Наук. Historical essays, 2005. - on page 274 and East European Jewish Affairs. Vol. 36. No.2. December 2006. pp. 163 –179." and "The Difficulties of Polish-Ukrainian Historical Reconciliation," Royal Institute of International Affairs, Kataryna Wolczuk, London, 2002 Confirm please - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: the author, @Moxy: and I all gave you sources so you can read them. The whole idea of giving people (you) sources is so people (you) read them. Now you have them, read them. Read & learning is fun. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep While I share your concern about the article's tone regarding the UPA, I would like to say that I think it's beneficial to have an article on the Ukrainian Insurgency like we do with the Guerrilla war in the Baltic states for example. I would like to keep the article if we can get rid of the nationalist bias. However if that isn't feasible I think we should merge the quality content into the UPA's/relevant articles. But reading the article, most of the problem seems to be with tone and not with the information itself. I think it can be fine with tweaks. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Then the article needs a lot of work to meet WP:NPOV if to be kept. Must include implementation of sources that actually fulfill the Arbitration Committee mandate from May last year. The white-washing of Ukrainian Insurgent Army crimes and Bandera collaboration with the Nazis by delivering them to our readers as national “heroes” of Ukraine is unacceptable. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep The article is very well sourced, is written in a neutral tone, and uses wiki voice. I've read the article several times and I feel it does not "glorify" the UPA or any other group that participated in the genocide of the Holocaust. So I ask that @GizzyCatBella: please tell specifically what part he/she thinks does glorify UPA. Thank you BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Entire article - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella:, if you're going to allege that the article "glorifies" the UPA or any other group that participated in genocide as your reason to have it deleted; then please site specific passages to support your allegation. Thank you BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, how about we start from the very end of the article BetsyRMadison. Here 🙂:

  ...Bandera (its about Stepan Bandera) remained an integral nationalist for the rest of his life.

  Do you see anything wrong with this unsourced statement? Here is the link that explains what Integral nationalism is. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella: Stephen Bandera did hold to the principles of "integral nationalism" until he was murdered by Russia's KGB. So no, I do not see anything wrong with that. Do you need me to give you more sources than what the author of the article already gave you to confirm that for you? BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes please, I would like to see a reliable source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) that Stepan Bandera was a non-racist nationalist. Please do. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella: For the record, first off: Ukrainian and other European publishers are reputable, even though you may have never heard of them. And it's not unusual for Ukraine, and other European countries, to have written more about their own country's history than what you would find in North American books and schools. Secondly, what Bandera described as "integral nationalism" isn't about 'non-racist nationalism' so I have no idea where you got that from? Thirdly, here are more sources than what the author of the article provide that acknowledge Bandera held to the principles of "integral nationalism" until he was murdered by Russia's KGB: "Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist" by Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe: ‎ Ibidem Press (October 1, 2014). and this "Heroes and Villains"

  By David R. Marples; Central European University Press (August 10, 2007). Let me know if you want more sources. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  (ec)Russia and Eurasia 2019-2020. Rowman & Littlefield. 11 October 2019. pp. 185–. ISBN 978-1-4758-5248-6. Moxy- 05:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Please quote from the sources you presented above part that supports:

  Stepan Bandera remained an integral nationalist for the rest of his life. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella: The author gave you once source, I gave you two sources, and @Moxy: gave you one source. That's a total of 4 source for you to read at your convenience. And while you're reading all 4 sources, remember learning and reading is fun! BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  (ec)"His life's goal was to create an independent Ukraine from the Ukrainian parts of eastern Poland and Soviet Ukraine. He was willing to collaborate with whoever would help him achieve that end." Moxy- 05:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Does above support: Stepan Bandera remained an integral nationalist for the rest of his life ? 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella: It's becoming evident that you don't know what "Ukrainian integral nationalism" is. If you read the sources the author gave you, I gave you, & Moxy gave you; you'll learn what it is. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t ? 🙂 - Anyway don’t answer, this is off topic already - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete / merge; merge whatever is salvageable into Ukrainian Insurgent Army, but delete rather than leaving a redirect, since this isn't a useful title. This is a textbook WP:POVFORK, being a straight duplicate of the history of the organization in that article, but written from a premise that essentially reflects the organization's own view of events; no neutral article could reasonably be written under this title. Renaming / rewriting it into a general article on Ukrainian resistance to the Soviet Union is unreasonable and not possible when everything in it is about the UPA, so the only thing to do is to merge and delete. Even framing it as a war is WP:POV in this context, since that is not how it is treated in most high-quality sources. Also, I should add that I strenuously disagree with the argument that this article is well-sourced - it cites the same few sources over and over again, almost all of them Ukrainian; there is nothing wrong with citing a bunch of sources from close to the fact, but for the article's sources to one-sided to the point of near exclusion of any other perspective is giving WP:UNDUE weight to one view and reinforces the fact that this is a POVFORK of Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Some people above suggest that it could be fixed, but we already have a balanced, well-written, well-sourced article on the UPA. --Aquillion (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, Ukrainian resistance to the Soviet Union might be a more fitting title if the article was thoroughly re-written to meet WP:NPOV - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella: Since 1917, there has been "Ukrainian resistance against the Soviet Union." Therefore, because the article is about UPA from 1944-1956, your suggested title would not be more fitting. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  1944-1956 the Soviet Union existed in those years and was exceptionally well and dandy. I don’t understand .. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella: You keep avoiding instead of answering my question. Now please answer: Why do you say the Russian Republic "was exceptionally well and dandy" between 1944-1956 when they brutally occupied east Berlin and much of eastern Europe. Please answer. Thanks. BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I said the Soviet Union was well and dandy in 1944-1956. (This is off topic, see collapsed section below) Now please stop asking off topic questions, you can use my talk page for that if you want. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella: It's your topic for your suggested new title, so it can't be off-topic. Please tell me why you say the "Soviet Union was exceptionally well and dandy in 1944-1956" when they brutally occupied east Berlin and much of eastern Europe. Please answer. I'd really like to know why you think that. Thank you. BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, this is becoming disruptive. Full stop now. Use my talk page please for off topic exchanges - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

off topic

Yes, in 1944-1956 the Russian Empire Republic existed. Between 1944-1956 the authoritarian Russian Republic brutally occupied East Berlin, Ukraine, Hungary, etc., So I don't know where you get the idea that the Russian empire Republic "was exceptionally well and dandy" between 1944-1956. Seriously, where'd you get that idea? BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC) (?) 1944 -1956 Russian Empire existed? Sorry, what on earth.... anyway ... I think I’ll pause here... - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC) @GizzyCatBella: You did not answer my question, tell me why you think Russian Republic "was exceptionally well and dandy" between 1944-1956 when they brutally occupied east Berlin and parts of eastern Europe? Oh, sorry for writing "Russian empire" instead of "Russian Republic." They're both very brutal & genocidal regimes so I apologize for causing you confusion on that. Now please answer my question. Thank you. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Russian Republic between 1944-1956 now...eh? Sorry BetsyRMadison but I’m choosing to pause this exchange for obvious (to me) reasons. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC) @GizzyCatBella: Yes, the Russian Republic. Read & learn about it here [6]The longer version is: Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. Now please answer my question: Why do you say Russian Republic "was exceptionally well and dandy" between 1944-1956 when they brutally occupied east Berlin and parts of eastern Europe? You said it, so please explain why you think that. Thanks. BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC) @BetsyRMadison - I might get back to you later. Please don’t get discouraged by those errors, we all learn all the time. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC) @GizzyCatBella: Thank you, because I do look forward to reading your answer on why you feel that between 1944-1956 the authoritarian Russian Republic, who brutally occupied East Berlin, Ukraine, Hungary, etc., "was exceptionally well and dandy." And I also look forward to you citing the specific passages of the article you allege glorifies UPA. BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC) So now it was the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic that occupied East Berlin etc.., not the entire Soviet Union? Just that one particular Soviet Republic? BetsyRMadison stop, please... - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Between 1944-1956, Russia was not an independent state, it was part of the Soviet Union along with Ukraine and many other Soviet Socialist Republics. Joseph Stalin, who was Georgian and not Russian, was the leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953 and Nikita Khrushchev, who was Russian lead the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964. If we were to take the logic that the Soviet Union was Russia by another name, then we would have to take the logic that the United Kingdom was England by another name and I'm not sure how the Scots, Welch, and Northern Irish would view been known as English rather than British, but I bet they wouldn't like it. Just Like I am pretty sure the Armenians, Byelorussians, Estonians, Georgians, Kazakhs, Kirghiz, Latvians, Lithuanians, Moldavians, Tajiks, Turkmen, Ukrainians, and Uzbeks would not be keen to be known as Russian. Lets do our research before publishing a comment and lets leave the emotion of current events from ruling our heads. Kind regards 79.155.36.178 (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete, hopeless POV issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I agree that there are POV issues, but the topic seems potentially notable (reliable academic source that should be used in the article: Examining the authoritarian model of counter-insurgency: The Soviet campaign against the Ukrainian insurgent army. I see there been attempts to NPOV the article, and they are ongoing. I am not sure this article is beyond saving and hence, I am not convinced WP:TNT applies. I do support tagging the article with {{NPOV}} and making it neutral, of course. The name is clunly and can be changed, I see there is a RM on article's talk page alraedy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree Piotrus, I believe this one might have hopeless POV issues as Ymblanter above noted. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I still think that the topic is notable, but I haven't studied the article sufficiently to know whether WP:TNT should be applied or not. In either case, my second preference after the week keep&rewrite is to merge&redirect. (Oh, and I fully agree this was a struggle against USSR, not just Russia). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete & merge There is a lot of emotion flying around here and people need to keep calm heads. Remember what the purpose of this project is. According to Jimmy Whales Wikipedia is "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language".[[7]] This article falls way short and is mired in multiple failures as specified by many editors above. The article should be deleted, with what can be saved, merged into other associated articles.79.155.36.178 (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: This article is a travesty. It begins with the title and the first paragraph, which erroneously claim that Ukraine was under Russian occcupation during the 1930s-40s. The Ukrainian SSR and the Russian SFSR were part of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is not synonymous with Russia, and the Soviet Union did not "occupy" Ukraine in the 1930s-40s. It was the government. Then, there's the fact that the article repeatedly refers to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) as the "liberation movement". For those who are unaware, the UPA collaborated with the Nazis, had its own fascist ideology, wanted to create an ethnically pure state, and attempted to carry out a genocide against Jews and Poles in western Ukraine. It's more than just a bit problematic to call them a "liberation movement" in Wikivoice. Guess what's not mentioned anywhere in this article? The words "Holocaust" or "Jew". This article just completely sweeps the UPA's complicity in the Holocaust under the rug. The article is entirely framed as a work of apologia for the UPA. If there's any content worth saving in this article, it can be merged into Ukrainian Insurgent Army. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Agree - Perhaps editors unfamiliar with the subject might want to read this recent article also - [8] - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Kuromiya, Hiroaki (1994). "Ukraine and Russia in the 1930s". Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 18 (3/4). [President and Fellows of Harvard College, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute]: 327–341. ISSN 0363-5570. JSTOR 41036906. Retrieved 2022-04-27. Moxy- 16:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Thucydides411: You're mistaken, Ukraine was under Russian occupation in 1930s-40s. Historian Timothy Snyder writes Ukraine was under Soviet occupation during the 1930s-40s [9], [10] In fact, from 1917-1991 Ukraine fought against Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic occupation troops (Russian occupation troops) to gain independence from Russian occupation. Speaking of 1930s,
  *From 1932-33, the Russian Republic under Joseph Stalin, waged genocide in Ukraine and killed 4 Million Ukrainians [11], [12], [13].
  *From 1936 and 1938, Stalin executed at least 9,000 Ukrainians who resisted Communism (The Great Purge). [14]
  *"Mass Graves In Ukraine Hold Thousands of Victims of Stalin’s Great Purge" [15].
  *Between 1929-1953, Stalin put nearly 18 million people in forced prison labor camps, Gulags, where many died of starvation and disease.
  *From 1933-1941, Stalin and Hitler were allies. Stalin collaborated with Hitler from 1933-1941.
  *In 1939, Stalin helped Hitler invade Poland to kill Jews. Stalin captured, tortured nearly 250,000 western Ukrainians and Poles when Stalin helped Hilter invade Poland in 1939. Stalin executed around 100,000 of them and sent the rest to Stalin's Gulag [16].
  *UPA, OUN, UVV etc., are described as Ukrainian liberation movement in wiki articles & in wiki sources [17] [18], while others describe them as Ukrainian independence movement. Since you're passionate about including their role in the Holocaust, then add it to the article. That'd be an easy, simple solution to elevate your concerns. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't really want to get into a protracted argument with you, because it's clear you hold historical views that are very far from the mainstream and I don't think we'd get far, but I just want to point out that your interpretation of the passage from Snyder's book is incorrect. In that passage, he writes, "In 1939, when the Soviet Union occupied what became Western Ukraine, ..." This is a reference to the Soviet occupation of Eastern Poland in 1939, after the German invasion. Lviv was part of Poland at the time, but would later become part of Ukraine. In this passage, Snyder is not calling Ukraine as a whole an "occupied territory" or anything similar. It's simply a reference to the occupation of Polish territories by the Soviet Union in 1939.

  You don't have to persuade me that Stalin was a bad guy. I just don't like seeing bad history on Wikipedia, and this article really takes the cake. Whatever your beliefs, you know that the claim that Soviet Ukraine was under "Russian Occupation" from 1922-91 is not mainstream, and that it's extremely contentious to call a fascist militia that helped perpetrate the Holocaust a "liberation movement". These sorts of claims simply cannot be made in Wikivoice, and any article that's framed from the viewpoint that these claims are correct is fatally flawed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly. Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I gave you sources that support my comments. Contentious to you, or not, the sources I gave you confirm scholars, historians, wikipedia, and wiki sources describe UPA, UVV, & OUN as Ukrainian liberation movement and/or Ukrainian independence movement. And you not liking those historical descriptions, doesn't make the descriptions any less true. And in order to adhere to WP:NPOV, the source's descriptions are the descriptions we have to use in wiki articles.
  Sources also confirm that since 1917-1991 Ukraine nationalists have been fighting like hell to be rid of Russian occupation [19], [20]. So your allegation that from 1922-1991 (and including the 1930s-40s), while Stalin's forces occupied eastern Ukraine as Stalin waged genocide & murdered 8 Million Ukrainians somehow signifies that Ukraine were happy, willing members of the Soviet Social Republics is also not true, not supported by fact, and not supported by sources. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  @BetsyRMadison - I would encourage you to study the Manipulation of the historical memory section in this article. -->

  [21] and the issue of whitewashing Ukrainian Insurgent Army describing its legacy as a "heroic Ukrainian resistance against the Nazis and the Communists". This is precisely what this (I hope soon deleted) article is doing and... sadly, seems you do as well. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella: that quote you gave is not in the article you want deleted. So please stop going off-topic. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment - By the way, there is another similar WP:CFORK of Ukrainian Insurgent Army recently created called Ukrainian Insurgent Army's fight against Nazi Germany with identical issues That needs to be addressed next. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Merge all the duplicate articles to some sort of title, but AfD is not for addressing NPOV concerns, that's what the edit button is for. casualdejekyll 20:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Its odd that not one source has been presented to show there is a problem Moxy- 11:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete the WP:POVFORK, per the convincing arguments put forth by Aquillion and Thucydides411. M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

On that note, Ukrainian Insurgent Army's fight against Poland should be at least a redirect to something... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't had time to give that one anything but a very cursory look. Are the sources that bad? I did see that Volunteer Marek had been through it. Elinruby (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC) -(later) oops, read that page title wrong Elinruby (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Update note - The article has been moved to Ukrainian anti-Soviet armed resistance, but this is still wrong because (article has been moved back to the original title GizzyCatBella🍁 21:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)) the article talks exclusively about UPA.Imagine a WP:POVFORK article about 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), Schutzmannschaft Battalion 118, Ukrainian Auxiliary Police or Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201 and creating the same WP:POVFORK article titled Ukrainian armed struggle against the Allies (or something like that) glorifying those units. Note that many of Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201 members for example, especially the commanding officers such as Roman Shukhevych, would later be recruited into the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Please also note this Ukrainian partisan force fighting in Ukraine at that time - Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army. They shared the same name with Ukrainian Insurgent Army (Ukrayins'ka Povstans'ka Armiya," or "UPA"), without merging into one army. They were not the same as UPA Banderites. The history of that region is quite complicated. -->[22] - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

And now...Ukrainian Insurgent Army and the Soviet Government Moxy- 06:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

lol, You learn your history from some YouTubers? 🙂 oh well ... no comments. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Making it as simple as possible for you ...that said your free to dismiss Ukrainian historians. Still waiting on rebuttal sources of anykind.Moxy- 06:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

For me? lol, I don’t need "simple" I’m familiar with the history of that region quite well 🙂. But thank you. (oh Gosh 🤦🏻‍♀️) - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Really because you have not shown any sources about the period. What is your POV based on? Moxy- 06:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

My POV is not based on YouTube videos, that’s for sure. 🙂 and I don’t understand what sources you want me to post. They are here Ukrainian Insurgent Army or here Stepan Bandera and widely available --> GizzyCatBella🍁 06:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Posted this in the article for research info...start there ..United States Information Agency (1988). "The Ukrainian Insurgent Army in Documents". Problems of Communism. Documentary Studies Section, International Information Administration. p. 3-PA77. ISSN 0032-941X. Moxy- 07:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to start here lol? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy How about you start here [23] - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I you think something is missing make a proposal .....all help is welcome. Moxy- 07:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is beyond repair in my opinion. It would have to be entirely re-written, and Moxy, seriously, (no offence) but please read a bit more about the subject. Even in Wikipedia. IDK.... start here Nachtigall Battalion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

We have provided many sources from academic publications to a entry level video.featuring Ukrainian historians. You have just stated its needs deletion ..... no recommendations for a fix or sources. Done with page.. Moxy- 07:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian historians here are clearly a party of the conflict and can not be considered as independent reliable sources. If the statement only occurs in the works of Ukrainian historians, it is better moved to Propaganda in Ukraine or a similar article. Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't only appear in the works of Ukrainian historians. He gave them the video because for some reason they won't produce an academic source and don't seem to be reading any of the sources in the article or the talk page. The video is produced by the Ukrainian public broadcaster, shrug. There's over a hundred sources to the article, in English, Ukrainian. Russian, Polish, French and German. Elinruby (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

How come the article is based almost entirely on non-English sources? M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It isn't finished but somebody won't let the author work on it. Also, it is allowed to be. What's your point?Elinruby (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Allowed" doesn't answer my question, so don't expect me to answer the obvious. M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I can't speak for the author, but the author lives in Ukraine so I am assuming that may be why many of the sources of Polish and Ukrainian. BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

explain to me like I am five Elinruby (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I expect a 5 year old to understand the simple question and answer it (if they can). M.Bitton (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I did answer it. It isn't finished and the original editor is being told she can't finish it. I added about fifteen English-language souces last night and when I get done answering silly questions here I will add some others, and reformat the Ukrainian ones, many of which are different pages in the same books. I will answer your question too -- you seem to be implying that this is one nationalistic point of view. This is simply not so, as there were sources here in all three of the pertinent languages, Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian. They are all RS, including all the new additions to Further Reading I added last night. Elinruby (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: You keep linking to "wiki" pages. No offence to wikipedia, but wikipedia is not an educational source. And because there are many factual errors in many wiki articles, (due to editors 'voting' on what 'facts' and 'truth' are) wikipedia is certainly not a reliable source for real or accurate history. The several articles and academic publications @Moxy: has given you are reliable sources for real/accurate history. But for some reason you choose reject those reliable sources. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

If you need help accessing any just ask.. May have links. Moxy- 07:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m good, thank - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: The funniest part of your comment is that you do rely youtubers as your source of education as evidenced by your edits in "Gonzalo Lira" page & your comments on that talk page. In fact, you insist on quoting "youtubers" (who are known Russian propagandists) within that article and you insist on calling youtubers "journalists" in that article & on that talk page. Oh my, your narrative sure has changed in less than a week. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison if you continue with personal attacks and commenting on editors then IDK...(quote from what you wrote ..you do rely you tubers as your source of education..) You keep skating on thin ice my dear. GizzyCatBella🍁 12:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: My comment is clearly about the "content" you put in articles & talk pages. Discussing "content" is not a personal attack & so you shouldn't take it as such. My comment highlights that you do use youtubers as a source of education for your edits in the "Gonzalo Lira" page & in your comments on that talk page. That's just a fact about your content (not you personally), and anyone can go to that page to see it for themselves. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep The article is about different topic - antisoviet resistance in Ukraine. If there is some concern about content - please provide samples of "glorifications" of people responsible for war crimes or correct these parts in the article with link to reliable sources. There is no need in deletion of this page.--Sakateka (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC) (This article is about Ukrainian Insurgent Army that was implicated in the Holocaust in occupied Poland [24] It's leader Stepan Bandera, an antisemite and Nazi collaborator [25] was operational in occupied Poland during World War II (1933–45), including anti Jewish pogroms and is directly related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II. The editor, who is also an author of this article does not meet extended confirmed requirements [26], therefore, may not make edits (see WP:APL50030-->[27] to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs..[28] and to this article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC))

Squabbling about who gets to post here, and not about topic notablity or deletion criteria

@GizzyCatBella: is using a new allegation, "extended confirmed restriction" to: Prohibit the author from editing their article, striking through the author's comment, and silencing the author. A brand new allegation that is no where in GizzyCat's 'deletion request.' On April 26, on the authors talk page GizzyCat wrote, "Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised." Yet today, GizzyCat is restricting the author from doing that. I strongly feel GizzyCat is violating WP:AFDDISCUSS that states "The author of the article can make their case like everyone else." I also strongly feel GizzyCat's brand new allegation to restrict & silence the author is misplaced and does not apply. I feel GizzyCat should explain why, on April 26, GizzyCat agreed that "extended confirmed restriction" did not apply to the author, but today GizzyCat claims it does. (On a side note: In case no one knows, the author lives in Ukraine -- a war zone, and is being bombed & invaded by Russia -- so the author hasn't had, and still doesn't have, much time to address any of this.) Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC) @Sakateka: Welcome back! For the record, the person who requested the "deletion" of your article has been asked repeatedly to give specific passages to support their allegation of "glorifications" and, to date, they haven't been able to provide any passages to support their allegation. hmm... On a separate note, @Elinruby: has worked very hard & has done a tremendous job editing your article. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC) @GizzyCatBella: From WP:AFDDISCUSS "The author of the article can make their case like everyone else. As discussed above, relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone... " You are wrong to scratch out the author's comment. You are wrong to try to silence them on this page by demanding they be prohibited from defending themselves against allegations you made that you can't even support. I am going to undo-your scratch out based off of WP:AFDDISSCUSS. BetsyRMadison (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC) The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed [29] - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC) @GizzyCatBella: Please read: WP:PLAYPOLICY. Then read WP:AFDDISCUSS "The author of the article can make their case like everyone else. As discussed above, relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone... " The article is about Ukrainian nationalists fighting for independence between 1944-1956. (WWII ended in 1945, not 1956.) The article is clearly not about "the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II." Under your theory, the author isn't allowed to publish their own article on wiki. Is that what you're alleging, because the author has edited just shy 500 edits; they have no right to publish their own article? If your theory is true, then why didn't you put that in your 'deletion request'? hmm.. And if your theory is true, then why didn't you just the delete right away and then say you did it because you feel that the article is about something it isn't about and the author has made 476 edits, not 500. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC) @GizzyCatBella: I am going to revert your strike-through of the author's on this page and here's why: 1) For an article up for deletion, WP:AFDDISCUSS says "The author of the article can make their case like everyone else. 2) I don't feel that your new allegation, 'extended confirmed restriction,' apply here for reasons I stated above (here [30] I want you to know that my revert is only about your edit (not you personally). I know you work very hard on wiki, so please, I urge you to not take my edit as anything personal about you, because it's not. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC) @BetsyRMadison I’ll report this to AE, please don’t. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC) @GizzyCatBella: All my edits are done in good faith. I explained my reasoning for undoing your revision 1085265985 where you 'strike' through the comments from the author. If my reasoning is wrong, then, I guess, someone at AE will let me know. But, remember, we all have the same equal right/permission to edit in good faith & that is exactly what I do. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC) @BetsyRMadison I’m drafting the report while we speak. If that goes to AE you might be blocked or topic banned. That’s how they will let you know, no other way. I’ll give you a moment to think about it but I can tell you that reinstating comments against the Arbitration rulings is a bad, bad idea. Maybe talk to an administrator you trust about it. (IDK Bishonen can you advise here please if you have time) I'll get back to you later, but if I don't see your self-revert, I think I'll go ahead with the report. Please don't make me do it, I really don't want to. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC) @GizzyCatBella: I think that's a great idea! Obviously my edits are done in good faith. I've explained my reasoning for the edit that you object to here [31], here [32], and here [33]. Maybe your objection is wrong, maybe my edit is wrong. And since we both edit in good faith, I feel your idea to ask someone like Bishonen is a good one. I'm leaving town, but will check back later. So, until then, best regards to all. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC) @GizzyCatBella: I just thought of an additional reason as to why I feel your new allegation of " "extended confirmed restriction" does not apply and I ask you to hear me out & consider it. On April 26 on the author's talk page you wrote "Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised." [34] That confirms to me, that on April 26, you agreed the author has no restrictions in editing their article or talk page. And I agree with your April 26 comment. The author was not restricted because "extended confirmed restriction" did not apply on April 26 & still does not apply. BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC) @BetsyRMadison Talk to admin. you trust. Seriously. (El C do you have time to take a look at the above exchange. They reinstated comment does not meet extended confirmed requirements[35]) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC) that editor has 16,000+ global edits. Elinruby (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep I see an article that has a lot of good sourced material, and in some pretty wild moments right now. I see a lot of invalid rationals noted for deletion (basically that the arttticle is in bad shape). I said "keep" just to keep anything random from happenning during this chaotic moment. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  No, the rationale for deletion is not that the article is in a bad shape but because it is a WP:POVFORK - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep I see an article that has a lot of good sourced material, and in some pretty wild moments right now. I see a lot of invalid rationales noted for deletion (basically that the article is in bad shape). I said "keep" just to keep anything random from happenning during this chaotic moment. I haven't taken the deep dive needed to answer the central question which is the relationship of this article to Ukrainian Insurgent Army which should be the real question, and I don't see much in-depth discussion of that in this heat of the moment. Is this article/it's title a sub-article, a related article with some overlap, just slightly a POV fork, totally a POV fork or what? Perhaps the sides involved should present/argue those aspects more thoroughlly here which may change some "votes" including mine. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep The nominator’s rationale doesn’t refer to WP guidelines, but appears to blatantly violate WP:assume good faith—“attempt (possibly unintended)” is self-contradictory—and perhaps seeks to WP:right great wrongs it employs demonizing language about historical figures and then extends it to the very existence of an article about them. While I admittedly haven’t followed the links to examine this in detail, on the surface this nomination is what’s somewhat disturbing. —Michael Z.

You haven't examined the links, but you have chosen to attack the nominator? Am I reading you correctly? (yes I do...) - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

What links?Elinruby (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The two “please refer to discussions” links in the nomination. —Michael Z. 23:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I have not written anything about the nominator. —Michael Z. 23:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep but completely rewrite The topic itself is notable. The article as is now is complete POV garbage. Volunteer Marek 20:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  Volunteer Marek Who is up to a total re-write? (Not me 🙂 thank you very much). But okay, if we decide on a total re-write, then some of the material could be transferred from these already existing UPA sections -->this one [36] this one [37] this one [38] this one [39] and this one [40]. So the lead of the article would be a short illustration of what kind of organization UPA was and then description of their battles against the Soviets in a neutral language bypassing their combat against the Poles, right? We would skip info like --> Karol Świerczewski for example. GizzyCatBella🍁 21:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  You see Volunteer Marek there are matching POV issues in different articles created by the same author, such as Self-defense Kushch Units for example. Those are easier to fix, however, because the article is shorter. Check that one out when you get some time. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Volunteer Marek: editor @Elinruby: has been working hard at editing a near-rewrite of the article. The original author lives in Ukraine so hasn't had much time to address any of the issues. But Elinruby has really stepped-up to author out. BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not stepping up for a re-write of the main article on the organization itself, at least until its sourcing problems are addressed. I had to stop looking at it because I didn't want to be accused of tag bombing. But. I have said I will do this one. 1944 was a pivotal year, and this does seem like a valid spin off to me. It isn't possible to omit all mentions of Poland though -- I don't think, don't have the timeline in front of me -- because the organization was active in Poland in 1944. Look, if anybody is POV pushing, I think it's the editor saying that the original editor can't edit her own work or even defend it in response to the concerns raised here that this article about 1944 doesn't cover events in 1941. I can see that some of them are notable and relevant enough to be included in some version of a background section, including Ukraine's declaration of independence and yes, the pogroms, at least the one in Lviv, but I am like three days into this article, and currently just now sourcing in English. I do see the need to include additional events in a background or aftermath section, but these are not the focus of the aticle, and I am getting to these. Repeating over and over again, while refusing to provide any sources, that everything was "dandy" under Stalin and Bandera was an anti-semite is not constructive. And:

1. NO.
2. Maybe, not there yet.

Look. Can we agree here that the grade-school level history taught in Russia and Ukraine is quite different? I assume, based on the sources I can read, that Poland has its own equally valid narrative, which is, I gather, something along the lines of the Soviets pushed them around and then gee, along came the Nazis and Ukrainians. I have no intention of suppressing that part of the story, though I think the original editor may not have realized its existence. This is why Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. I think that the grown-up version of this history, as described by Snyder et al, retells the narratives pretty well, without demonizing or glorifying anybody. The article has sources in five languages including Polish and Russian. If any others should be included, LMK. I have taken note of one very good suggestion, though it isn't in the article yet. I am willing to accept specific constructive feedback about any of them or anything in the article. But this AfD is an enormous waste of everyone's time, including GizzyCatBella's, which would be better spent sourcing the main article about the organization.Elinruby (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Well said! BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - I hadn't voted yet because I have been assessing the article and its sources. Those who are complaining about scope are simply hoist on their own petard. Don't start a request for move then complain about the results. Note that I didn't vote on that request, because *I didn't care* what the scope was and was willing to accept whateer the consensis might be. I was more concerned with whether the existing article was well enough sourced to build in the other national narratives. I have concluded that it is, and I will do it. This is the kind of assessment of a translation that I have been doing for years. Anyone who doubts whether I can do this should check my edit history and in particular the editor of the week award for Operation Car Wash. I am in this because I don't like it when editors tell other editors that their country isn't entitled to a history. I am not, by citizenship or ethnicity, either Russian, Ukrainian or Polish. I have a childhood friend whose grandparents were Romanian. Another childhood friend's parents were Hungarian Jewish refugees. My neighbor is ethnically Polish. That is the extent of my personal stake in this history. It really annoys me to have to spell all this out. I have no objection to the NPOV banner staying up for the near future. Elinruby (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete/merge to Ukrainian Insurgent Army per Aquillon. This is a POV pushing content fork. The lead of the article fails to mention the insurgent army's partipation in the Holocaust against the Jews, the brutal massacres and ethnic cleansing of Polish civilians, mostly women and children of Poles in Eastern Galicia and Volhynia, or the army's original political goal of creating a pure Ukrainian ethnostate closely allied with Nazi Germany. The editors who advocate keeping this POV fork have had several days to correct the glaring POV pushing in the lead, but have not done do. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: that's me you are talking about. The article title was changed in an RfM two days ago, to "ant-Soviet resistance", which was in 1944. It's now been changed back, presumably because the nom didn't like the results of their own RfM, but the scope of the article is now different, so don't go by that. The collaboration would have been in 1941, as was the Lviv pogrom. The nom keeps citing wikioedia pages and YouTube videos to prove that the leader was an anti-semite, but I can't just import the writing from the main article, which is a poorly sourced mess. The citation for Banders's antsemitism is a book review. I have never hearf of the source for the Ukrainian Insurgent Army's participation in the Lviv but if it is good or a good source can be found, yes, it definitely should be mentioned. I agree. But how exactly? The nom's own sources don't support Bandera's personal participation, and he was pretty busy that day declaring the independence of Ukraine. That is why it hasn't been added yet, and now that it looks like the sourcing needs to be redone to include this as more than a mention in the background of 1944, the nominator has moved on in their rationale for deletion, and is now claiming that the article doesn't have any reliable sources, and won't, just won't, either cite some specific problems or provide a decent source for their own contentions. Please help. A moratorium on page moves would be a fantastic start, because the antics at this AfD just sucked up two days of my life researching something that is no longer the article's topic. Yes I am tired and exasperated Elinruby (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

...or this section --> [41] UPA in Poland. Not a single word about UPA's massacres of Poles for what they are the most famous for or not a word about their participation in the Holocaust. This article is a pile of complete rubbish, as VM says.

PS - Perhaps it could be rescued, but so far, I see no improvement in addressing the serious issues despite heavy editing performed primarily by one editor. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: It is true that the UPA massacre in Poland isn't mentioned in the article yet. But you know, there is an "edit button" that can remedy that. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I still believe the article should be deleted for the reasons explained multiple times. If it is decided to keep it, then I’ll work on the article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: your "deletion request" only gives one allegation: "glorify the organization" and nothing else, no other allegations, just that one. And about that, editors have repeatedly asked you to give specific passages to support your allegation, and you still haven't been able to give any. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't be telling me what I am capable of doing. The heavy editing has so far consisted of clarifying the language and familiarizing myself with the souces cited and the additional sources that should perhaps also be used. I have already said that IF ONLY YOU WILL PROVIDE A SOURCE anything that needs to be added can be added. But you *are* aware that you are complaaining that an article that until this morning was about 1944 isn't talking about 1941? That was when the Germans were in the area. The Soviets came back in 1944. And I have spent the intervening time trying to coax you to tell me exactly why you think the article lacks reliable sources? Now that you have unilaterally moved the article, yes, 1941 needs to be expanded, I guess. It's sort of a three degrees of Russian occupation, but there are theories that what they did in Poland had something to do with enlisting the Germans to help them with the Russians, vs. "anti-Soviet", which it wasn't really. I am also confused about this unilateral scope change. If the RfM should not have been closed, where is it? Because now I do want to comment, now that I have put in a bunch of work on a different article scope. Elinruby (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Tbh this is a textbook definition of a POV fork: To cut off the period before 1944 and to claim that these Holocaust perpetrators have no relation to the Holocaust, because all the jews have been murdeded by that time. Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I am getting really tired of people putting words in my mouth. I am not claiming anythng of the kind. lease stop and re-read the above thread if you think I am. But the events of 1941 are not the events of 1944. In 1941 they were apparently working with Nazis and declaring an independent country. In 41-43 Bandera was in a concentration camp and a guy who apparenty WAS anti-semitic was running things. In 44 Bandera was out and the Soviets were back. In 45 they were getting massacred in Poland. If we need a spinoff article about 41, somebody should write one. Killing Poles and Jews in 1941 is not an "anti-Soviet" activity that took place in 1944. It is related to what happened in 1945. But that is not the set of events the is article is about. I tell you what. I will change my vote to merge if I am left alone for a couple of days to do it myself, and source it with something something respectable. Best and final offer. Otherwise we can let GizzyCat just continue denying that there was anything wrong with belonging to Stalin's Soviet Union, and we may as well write off Wikipedia as a source of actual information. And the Foundation wonders why we lose editors. That Ukrainian translator is never coming back and I am back to thinking I shoul probably go do some paid work where nobody impugns my motives. Elinruby (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a section in your article titles "UPA from 1941 to 1943" you didn't mention anything about all the atrocities comitted by UPA in that time period. Killing Poles and Jews in 1941 is not an "anti-Soviet" activity that took place in 1944. Genocide of Polish happened in years 1943-1945 yet you didn't mention anything about it Marcelus (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This should be added ...anyone have a good propsal? Moxy- 15:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

If true I agree; I got sidetracked dealing with the denial of the Holomodor that was one of the original rationales for deletion -- that the Ukrainians were a hapy part of the Soviet Union and of course there was no occupation or resistance to the occupation Your assisance is welcome fleshing out the period, @Marcelus: By the way, I am not the author of the original article. I am just in this because I don't like seeing history suppressed, and the original author needs to make about 150 more edits to English wikipedia before she is allowed to post here apparently Elinruby (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the "150 more edits" that seems to be up for debate, I guess. What I mean is, as of May 2020, the rule itself doesn't mention English edits or any language. [42], it says "500/30 restriction: All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II..." The rule doesn't say "English edits" or any particular language, it says "All IP" editors.." And here [43] the rule says, "Articles under extended confirmed protection (ECP) can be edited only by extended-confirmed accounts – accounts that have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits." Again, doesn't mention language. And here, [44] the rule says "A registered editor becomes extended confirmed automatically when the account has both existed for at least 30 days and made over 500 edits." Doesn't distinguish language; although the rule does go on to say English users have additional benefits and can "use the Content Translation tool and the INDEX template on user pages." But that's it. The author here, has made over 19,300 total edits and if the rule mandates English edits only, then the rule should say it, but it doesn't. No where that I can find anyway. I feel this "English edit" only question needs to be answered by someone who can point to the rule where it says it. BetsyRMadison (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: You are still confusing en.wp with other projects. The arbitration cases on the English Wikipedia are irrelevant to other projects, and vice versa. The same goes for all the policies and guidelines. M.Bitton (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I'm not taking about arbitration cases, I'm talking about the rule itself. The rule itself doesn't mention "English edits" [45] the rule says "A registered editor becomes extended confirmed automatically when the account has both existed for at least 30 days and made over 500 edits." and here [46] the rule says, "Articles under extended confirmed protection (ECP) can be edited only by extended-confirmed accounts – accounts that have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits.". If the rule mandates English edits only, then the rule should say it, but it doesn't. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended confirmed is a technical status. It is assigned by Mediawiki. It is assigned on the English Wikipedia after an account has made 500 edits and has been registered for 30 days on the English Wikipedia, irrespectively of what the account was doing at other Wikimedia project. The edits on the English Wikipedoa can be in any language, although if the account posts here in some other language more often than in English it will probably be indeffed before it makes it to an etxended confirmed. This was for your information. Now, if you believe that, despite this information, the decisions of the Arbitration Committee refer to 500 edits total across all Wikimedia projects, you should ask the Arbitration Committee for clarification, though I am absolutely certain what the answer would be. Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby Okay pal, you wrote --> I got sidetracked dealing with the denial of the Holomodor that was one of the original rationales for deletion [47].Which diff are you talking about? Who was denying the Holodomor here? Post the diff you are referring to below now please - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, would you *please please respect talk page etiquette*. I had to do a page find to find this demand, and it separates a comment of mine from the comment it is replying to. In answer to your rude demand

1. please don't call me pal. People who deny genocide are not my pal.
2. I already gave you that diff once in this AfD. Why is it my job to keep track of this for you? I am still trying to recover from you saying (since apparently you can't remember????) "So let me address your inquiry BetsyRMadison about why I spoke (joking of course) that the Soviet Union was "well and dandy" from 1944 to 1956. So...they just pushed the Germans west after the Stalingrad and with the collapse of Nazi Germany, became a "dandy" super-power. They soon developed a nuclear weapon and shortly after, in 1961, dispatched Gagarin into space, so he could look and smile from far above at the huge territory the Soviet Union acquired. Does this answer your question? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)"

1. It's *still* on my talk page. You can remove it and apologize for putting it there anytime you like. And please don't tell me not to talk to you and then demand that I do. SMH. As noted elsewhere, I am not your bitch.
2. And this was in response to BetsyRMadison speaking to you (somewhere else) about saying ""1944-1956 the Soviet Union existed in those years and was exceptionally well and dandy." And you followed her to my talk page and decided that my talk page was the place to be even more offensive. Since you are demanding that I remind you of this dispute that you brought to my talk page for some reason, I am adding her reply for context:

@GizzyCatBella: I didn't ping you, because I didn't invite you to this conversation. It's that simple. But since you're following me on wiki, your exact quote is "1944-1956 the Soviet Union existed in those years and was exceptionally well and dandy." This isn't the first time I've seen you try wiggle out of something you did say. But that's beside the point. It's apparent you don't know what the "Soviet Union" was. The Soviet Union was not one country (as you seem to think) it was a forced conglomerate of 15 countries (Republics): USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (notice the 's' at the end, plural). The Russian Republic brutally ruled all of the other Republics even though they all wanted their independence & didn't want to be in the "SSRepublics" (plural). The Russian Republic brutally controlled them all under a 1-party rule out of Moscow. Example: In 1930s Russian Republic waged genocide in Ukraine and killed almost 4 million Ukrainians.

Ukrainian nationalists didn't set out to kill Jews pre-1941, but I'll tell you who did: Russian Republic leader Joseph Stalin.

From 1933-1941 Stalin & Hitler were allies. In 1939 Stalin & Hitler invaded Poland to kill Jews. At that time, Ukraine nationalists weren't killing Jews, Russia's Joseph Stalin was killing Jews along side Hitler (Stalin, the guy you say led an "exceptionally well and dandy" country.)

In 1941 Hitler invaded Stalin's Ukraine and told Ukraine nationalists that if they fought with the Germans, they'd give Ukraine independence they'd been fighting Russia for since 1917.

• You said you want to delete the article because you feel the article "glorifies" UPA, but you can't (or won't) cite any passages to support your allegations.
• Then you switched to complaining about sources. The author, Moxy, & I gave you sources; you won't read the sources. I even translated a source for you and you still won't read it.
• Then you suggested to change the title to "Ukrainian resistance to the Soviet Union" and I explained since Ukraine resistance has been fighting Russian Republic for their independence since 1917, and the article only covers 1944-1956, your title isn't fitting.
• That's when you said, "1944-1956 the Soviet Union existed in those years and was exceptionally well and dandy." And now you're here pretending you didn't say what you did say."
• Here's the real kicker to your praise of Russia's Stalin - Stalin, the guy who for decades waged genocide on Ukrainians, Jews, etc - The author of the article is from Ukraine. And right now, while you sit here and praise Russia, inside the author's country, Russia is waging a genocidal invasion in Ukraine, kidnapping & raping Ukrainians, and destroying Ukrainian cities. While the author is dealing with all that, you accuse the author of "glorifying" UPA and you can't even cite a single passage to support your claim. Now that is sad. BetsyRMadison (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)}}

I will note that she left out your original rationale for deleting the article, that it was "anti-Soviet" Elinruby (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

For the record (see above[48]) -->@Elinruby You falsely accused me of denying the Holodomor citing my comments that does not even mention Holodomor at all. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

look, it's ok to admit you didn't know something. It becomes annoying when you won't look it up. Things were not dandy, ok? the joke, if that is what it was, was beyond inappropriate. I am goimg to sleep now. I wish Wikipedia had an ignore button. HMMM. Checking Beta Elinruby (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Didn’t know what? You accused me of being a genocide denier without evidence [49]. I'm unable to ignore what appears to be a serious WP:NPA. Point where am I talking about the genocide or Holodomor or strike that false accusations please. Note recent logged warning in EE [50] - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This conversation you began is off-topic for this Talk page. I realize it's a fluid conversation, but it's off-topic. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: no don't do that ;) getting ahold of her and explaining to her that she just needs to make 150 more edits on en.wiki is a much better idea; I don't think that has been explained to her, because Gizzy has just been striking her comments along with a cryptic link. Elinruby (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Delete I don't think there is much to salvage in the current form. The article is clearly translated word by word from the Ukrainian Wikipedia, and is exteremly one-sided. To give some examples. In the 2nd paragraph it confuses Bandera's UPA with Taras Borovets UPA, which are two different organisation, the latter was formed earlier and hijacked by Bandera. Very short chapter "UPA from 1941 to 1943" doesn't mention anything about genocides comitted by UPA and its members in that time-span. There is nothing about collaboration with Nazi Germany. The only ethnic cleansing mentioned is the one comitted by Polish National Armed Forces in Verkhovyna on Ukrainians. When Vasyl Sidor is introduced there is not mention that he is directly responsible for the death of 20-70 thousands Polish people in Galicia and forced expulsion of 400 thousands. The articles is simply nationalist propaganda. Saying that I think there is a place for the article about Ukrainian armed resistance against Soviet occupation Marcelus (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

What confuses do you mean? There is explanation about 2 UPAs in Background section. Sakateka (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Enforcing WP:APL50030 [51] - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus: The differentiation between the 2 UPA groups are in the "Background" section. Knowing, that, do you still think the 2nd paragraph in the lede should elaborate on that as well? Also I will adding that that UPA collaborated with the Nazis & waged genocide in that time period. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison: Do you really asking? Borovets UPA has nothing in common with Banderist UPA except the name. The intro confuses both groups by suggesting that the UPA's anti-Soviet struggle began as early as 1941, when it did not even exist yet.Marcelus (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus: Yes, I do agree with you, it is confusing and I've been working on that issue, off-line, since I posted to you earlier. But, I keep getting interrupted by my beautiful children. Lol. I didn't want to edit that in drips & drabs. So I'll keep working on it off-line and post it to the article when I'm done. By the way, thanks for your input, it's very helpful in improving the article. Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - the conflict is obviously notable as a separate topic, regardless of what POV issues the article may have at the moment.--Staberinde (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  Cleary 2 points of view here...or one view omitting info. The Historian Whitewashing Ukraine’s Past. This could be fixed with a passage about the period. Moxy- 16:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

   Fixed nice addition guys :-) Moxy- 22:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep "if" NPOV if fixed by adding information about the Jewish and Polish victims of the UPA 204.237.50.78 (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Enforcing WP:APL50030 [52] - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you should read that link, GizzyCatBella. In particular it says

The following is added as a remedy to the Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case: 7) "...Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by the methods mentioned above. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized bny the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area. Passed 6 to 0 by motion at 19:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Not only should you, as an involved editor, and a non-administrator, not be enforcing this decision, you definitely should not be misrepresenting it. Elinruby (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby (I’m really getting tired of this). You skipped this part --> "However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions." [53]GizzyCatBella🍁 02:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I've been wondering about too. I wasn't aware that wiki allowed the non-Admin editor who initiated this AFD to unilaterally enforce those types of decisions against the editor they've placed the AFD on. Sounds like a conflict of interest to me. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The decision says admins. Elinruby (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella You're missing the big important point here. You are not an admin. Even if you *were* an admin, you are *definitely* INVOLVED. You should not be "enforcing" this decision. And if you are tired of drama, you could always stop creating it. You, yes, you, are the author of this pointless AfD. If you want me I will be improving the article Elinruby (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Get clarification from ArbCom, this is how this ruling is enforced everywhere else. PS - and stop pinging me to this article, please. I’m not interested in participation (for now). - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I just want to fix a damn article. I don't recall pinging you recently, but I will be more than happy to refrain going forward Elinruby (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think everyone should get some air and catch perspective. Ukrainian-Soviet topics, especially now, are sensitive. I think I can say that everyone agrees that an article on the struggle of the Ukrainian underground against the Soviets in 1941/44-1960 deserves an article. After all, we are talking about a conflict that claimed about 150,000 lives on the Ukrainian side and about 30,000 on the Soviet side. However, there is no denying that the article in its current form is unacceptable. First of all, we are dealing with a machine translation. And already this causes a lot of problems. I looked through the Polish section, because I have the greatest knowledge in this subject (by the way, why the UPA's fight against the Polish communist army is placed here, if the article is devoted to the fight against the Soviets?) and there are a lot of basic errors, such as the translation of Zakerzonia (uk. Закерзоння) to Transcarpathia, or the translation of the name of the UPA military region "Sjan" (uk. Сян) to Xiang. This is unacceptable. There are also factual errors and omissions. The article mentions the crimes committed by the Polish communist army and the anti-communist underground against Ukrainians, but says nothing about the UPA's crimes. The UPA's last major genocidal anti-Polish action took place around Ternopil in early 1945. There is not a word about it. As well as about the attacks and burning of Polish villages in Zakerzonia even in 1946 (in most cases without civilian casualties), or the shooting of prisoners of war. But even focusing on the military side there is no mention of the most important battles and the course of the fighting in general. This is just a bad article badly translated.Marcelus (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Like that never happens on wikipedia ;) So I want to fix it. This is what I do. Your edits earlier today, cited above, were quite helpful, and if you are moved to make more, please do ;)

• Comment This is largely about an anti-Soviet insurgency in Ukraine. I am not sure that it adds much to Ukrainian Insurgent Army: Merge(?), but the target is already fairly full length and this is not a likely search term, so that a redirect would not be useful. Another option might be to split between the events of 1944-5 and the subsequent events involving the suppression of a small movement. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that such specific approaches could arise out of this AFD. I think that the impplicit premise of my "keep" was to be able to then move on to a phase of deciding what to do next. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

my best assessment of the situation: I am currently sourcing what is here and compiling sources. A couple of Polish speakers are answering language questions. I just want to be certain that if I start writing to a certain scope, the page won't get get moved while I am doing it. The article, as written, is about 1944 onwards, as Peterkingiron has noticed. However, there appear to be vehement opinions that not including an extensive discussion of collaboration prior to that is somehow whitewashing Nazis. I have added a paragraph about this to the background section, which is where this belongs if we are talking about 1944. I think this subtopic needs to be developed further, but the topic of the article has already changed twice, so it's pretty hard to sensibly weigh DUE WEIGHT. I am ok with the position that the Ukrainians were always resisting the Soviets, but have been instructed that this is just silly because there wasn't a war about this and the Ukrainians were very very happy starving to death and being deported to Siberia. None of the people with this concept of the history are editing the article, mind you.

The people who say it lacks events in Polish history that should be in the Background and 1942-1943 sections seem to have a better point, and one of them is at least being civil, but I still want to know what the topic is. If it is anti-Soviet resistance then that was 1944, and the pogroms and the declaration of the independence of Ukraine should be summarized. If it is "war against Russian occupation", well, that is not the topic I researched, but according to the Ukrainians that starts somewhere around the Bolshevik revolt in Kviv, which was somewhere around 1919.

I did not write this article btw. I rescue machine translations and turn them into decent articles, and this one caught my attention. It would be nice if somebody could explain to the author why her comments are being struck. That part of the problem could be fixed in a day or two, if she knew that she just needs to make 150 more edits to english wikipedia, and if that happened she could clear up some questions. As far as the wikiproceedings go: Nobody has yet found an unreliable source, although a ridiculous claim has been made about the Kyiv Post, the terrible formatting is not yet completely remedied, and some abbreviations remain mysterious. Translating reference format is a lot of work; the people yelling here don't realize. The NPOV case is abandoned, and this AfD is going nowhere. Two other people are willing to help, but spaghetti keeps being thrown at the wall in this AfD. Your proposal sounds fine to me. Or, I could expand back to 1919. And btw the main article needs a rewrite. I have offered to merge this into it but apparently the only acceptable solution is to delete the article, because there is no such thing as Ukrainian history, because they are all Nazis. Sound familiar?

Meanwhile, I co-wrote Liberation of France and nobody was saying let's not include the Petain regime because they helped the Nazis. Yeah they did, and it is in there, absolutely it is in there, and so is the mafia in Marseille and the collaborators and the women who slept with Germans to get food. By the way, I would like to thank North8000 for the keep, which was a ray of sunshine in all the drama here. We can write whatever, whenever some decision is reached by somebody. I have voted on the new RfM, and so has the primary editor helping with Polish. On the other side, lol, but I think he also just wants all the shouting to be over. Protecting the page from any more moves except by admins was a start. But what is the article topic if it must be re-written? There aer a couple of days worth of work before we really need to know, and as you can probably tell, I need a break from it right now, but that is the question. There actually are people here trying to produce an article, though, although I realize it is hard to tell. (by Elinruby)

I don't plan to take the deep dive on the topic needed to do real editing on the article, but I'd be happy to hang around and support research-based efforts to wikify and improve the article or decide on other options for the article. North8000 (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

thank you. The listings in "Further reading" are proposed sources, is the only thing I can think of that isn't competely usual. I have done some tagging, and wikifying, feel free to review. Overlinking and undertagging are possible. Wikignoming -- references? Some of them are in multiple languages though. Basically, any help you feel like putting into this is extremely welcome. I would say that a question on the talk page might be answered. Peace out. I have wound down a bit and really am going now. Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Elinruby, the problem with your comparison with content about Vichy France is that the topic area you mention is not subject to discretionary sanctions, but Eastern Europe is. That is because there is a very long history of highly disruptive editing in the Eastern Europe topic area, but not with regards to Western Europe including the history of France. When an article concerns events that took place 70 to 90 years ago, and the topic area is under discretionary sanctions, then the references used should be the highest quality academic quality sources. Those would include books by recognized scholars in the field published by university or academic presses, or articles by recognized scholars in reliable, peer-reviewed academic journals of Eastern European history. Daily newspapers of even the best quality do not qualify in these narrow cases, though they are useful for current events. Nobody is arguing to exclude anything comparable to the Petain regime. Instead, the point is thst we should not have a content fork that serves to whitewash the full and complete history of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army by zeroing in on one phase of its existence, and consisting at least in part of non-neutral praise of the group. Any neutral, properly referenced content from this article should be merged into the main article, and this content fork should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

My point, sir, is that I am not whitewashing a thing and nobody, especially me, is disputing that discretionary sanctions may apply if the Holocaust is mentioned in passing as a prelude to 1944 or more fully if it turns out trhat the topic of the article is Ukraininan history back to 1919. Merely that is would be nice if some consensus should be found here. But there are at least four narratives here, all of which should be appropriately represented. I am also uncertain where you are getting the idea that I have an issue with high-quality sources ;( I thought you knew me better than that. I am this very moment talking to the person who tagged this article for sources, and he doesn't remember doing it and said what rs tag. So. Please. Apparently you were not aware that I sometimes rescue machine translation, and that is why I am here. I am very tired and have been accused of this and that for most of the weekend. I also need to talk to this editor about that tag while I have his attention. Can we do this tomorrow? Elinruby (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: It's great that you're trying to save this bad translation, but understand that the problem is not that the article is badly translated, but that it is badly written, very one-sided. Adding references doesn't change much, any nonsense can be sourced. Besides, as you yourself admitted your knowledge in this topic is limited. For example crimes against Polish population are not a "background" but a part of UPA activity, they were still committed. OUN's collaboration with Germans did not end in 1941, but they resumed it after Bandera was released from prison. That just examples Marcelus (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You've already told me about 42-43 and I have agreed that anything that happened then should be included, found some sources (see Further Reading) and also read quite a few of them. Bandera got out in 44 when the Soviets came back, right? If so it is in scope whatever the topic is (see extensive lament above). But the issue here is that I get interrupted every five minutes by somebody that says I am a bad person or the article can't be fixed, or I am ignorant, or whatever. So. I am pedalling as fast as I can, and I need to go look at the sentence that the other editor is talking about before I fall asleep or he wanders off. Let me get back to you on the one-sidedness of the article, eh? Working on it. Elinruby (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's be real, you are ignorant on this topic, which is obvious from your comments and edit, you even admitted that yourself Marcelus (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow @Marcelus:! That's sounds like a personal attack. I feel we should all dial-down the temperature and a bit more WP:CIVIL is in order. And by the way, there's no requirement that any of the volunteer editors on wikipedia need to be scholars in any area they edit. They simply need to use reliable sources to edit and improve articles. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it’s not. That's a legitimate concern. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Nah @BetsyRMadison:, that's how the things looks like, nobody needs to be a scholar to edit and I don't take away editing rights from anyone, but it doesn't change the fact it would be nice to know something about the topic Marcelus (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Marcelus: Do you know what they call a heart surgeon who didn't graduate 1st in the class? A heart surgeon. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename to Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Soviet occupation. We do have page Ukrainian Insurgent Army's fight against Nazi Germany. This page is also a legitimate subpage of Ukrainian Insurgent Army. And it covers really a lot of sourced content, and during a different specific time frame, i.e. after WWII. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes (and all) You know what? That’s might be a good idea. What do you folks think about the article being renamed to UPA post-WW2 warfare against the Soviet Occupation and focusing on that time frame? I would be in favour of keeping such article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  What about Ukrainian Insurgent Army armed resistance against Soviet Union/Ukrainian armed resistance against Soviet Union? But I don't know if we can keep parts about communist Poland and CzechoslovakiaMarcelus (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, you might be right. But also why focus on the fight against the USSR only since they kept fighting Poland and Czechoslovakia as well ... anyway, I believe if we focus on post WW2 then the article might have a more potential of being kept. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes: ironically, there was a discussion to rename the article (here [54]) and then suddenly, within a 4 minute span (yes, 4 minute span) someone decided to start this AFD to Delete (here [55]). No pre-discussion, not well thought out -- more like a knee-jerk reaction in the span of 4 minutes. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename to Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Soviet occupation. And then add the Ukraine's armed resistance against the Socialist Soviets 1919-1922, which ended with the Socialist Bolsheviks from Moscow bloodily destroying the Ukrainian resistance.XavierItzm (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  @XavierItzm - Was the 1919-1922 resistance against the Soviets conducted by the same Banderites UPA the article is about? No, it was not. Really, folks please pay attention to such things before commenting. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  You've misread the comment you replied to; the editor didn't say anything about Banderites. The editor gave an idea for part of a Background section that would include the Ukrainian independent forces (plural) fighting the Socialist Bolsheviks from 1917-1921 (Soviet-Ukraine) War, 1917–21. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment / navigation. It looks like this will be a "keep" with the caveat that nearly everybody says that it needs major changes. My thought above was "keep for now and then in the next phase decid what to do with it". Possibly we could combine the next phase into this AFD? First temporarily set issues about article quality aside. IMO, the fundamental question (after which time the title can be derived) is: What should the topic and scope of this article be? If anyone is game for my idea, I invite them to post a few sentences with an answer to that question and a few notes on a rationale for that answer. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep Article has been sourced and the topic seems to be notable. As said above, the article needs extensive cleanup, however. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• The article often refers to source publications (mainly collections of documents), very often to the 'UPA Yearbook', according to the website [56] Litopys UPA: publishes source documents and materials in four series with an aim to stimulate interest not only in the UPA activities but in a more general way, also in the history of Ukraine of that period. Does the article therefore meet the requirements of WP:OR, mainly the exclusion of primary sources WP:PRIMARY?Marcelus (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  No, these are not RS's for this particular topic area. Refer to ArbCom ruling on it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  [57] Moxy- 22:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  @GizzyCatBella: should we remove parts based on primary sources then? Marcelus (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Marcelus Yes. Perhaps wait for the culmination of this AfD or do it now if you have time. We will evaluate all sources if this is to be kept later anyway. I didn’t examine all the references but from what I saw most of the text is referenced to the sources that don’t fulfill the expectations, such as UPA diaries (primary) or junk from websites dedicated to UPA. That all has to go. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I have a feeling the article will stay, so it's a good idea to start improving it now. I'll do it, but not likely today or tomorrow, probably around the weekendMarcelus (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The article is a pretty notable subject and is a good way to spin off material from the Ukrainian Insurgent Army article into an article related to the insurgency it took part in. The War of the Camisards page used to be a redirect to Camisards until I managed to fix that.
  That said, there are massive POV problems within the article. This includes a failure to mention the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, as well as the fact that that the UPA was an anti-semitic, Anti-Polish, terrorist organization that collaborated with Nazis. The title is also rather POV.
  TL;DR, the article is written poorly, and a bettern name would be desired, but still, WP:SPINOFF and WP:DINC. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, the massacres of Poles prominently belong to page Ukrainian Insurgent Army, but I do not think that it was a part of their war against the Soviet occupation, so does not belong to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.